Adame v. Mariscal et al
Filing
36
ORDER Vacating Trial Dates, Dismissing Action with Prejudice for Failure to Comply with the Scheduling Order and Directing Clerk of Court Court to Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/21/16. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JESSE ADAME,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
F. MARISCAL, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01596-SAB (PC)
ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATES,
DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
SCHEDULING ORDER AND DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE
[ECF Nos. 29, 33)
Plaintiff Jesse Adame is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
I.
20
BACKGROUND
21
Plaintiff Jesse Adame, a former state prisoner proceeding pro, filed this civil rights action
22
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2014. This case is set for jury trial on November 1,
23
2016, on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force against Defendants Vallejo and Mariscal.
Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before August 25, 2016, but he failed to file one,
24
25
and he has not filed a response to the order to show cause filed on September 6, 2016.
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
II.
2
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
3
On May 13, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Plaintiff to file a pretrial
4
statement on or before August 12, 2016. Plaintiff failed to file a pretrial statement; therefore, on
5
August 18, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement on or before August 25,
6
2016. Plaintiff failed to file a pretrial statement, and failed to appear for the telephonic pretrial
7
conference held on September 2, 2016. Thus, on September 6, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
8
show cause within fourteen days why the action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
9
prosecute the action. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond to the order
10
would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice. More than fourteen days have passed and
11
Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order.
12
The failure to obey a scheduling order is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ.
13
P. 16(f)(1)(C). The Court’s order to show cause warned Plaintiff that the failure to respond to the
14
order would result in dismissal. (ECF No. 33.)
15
A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. Johnson v. Mammoth
16
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties
17
are required to exercise due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080,
18
1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609), and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to
19
file a pretrial statement and failure to respond to the order to show cause warrant the imposition of
20
sanctions.
21
III.
22
DISMISSAL AS A SANCTION
23
The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,
24
impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles
25
County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to
26
comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution
27
of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)
28
the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
2
1
sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th
2
Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do
3
and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226
4
(citation omitted).
5
This case has been pending since 2014, and it is set for jury trial in less than two months. The
6
expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of
7
dismissal. Id. at 1227. This action has been pending for almost two years, and Plaintiff had ample
8
time to begin trial preparation and comply with the scheduling order. Id. The Court has an extremely
9
heavy caseload, and when litigants disregard orders of the court and deadlines, the Court’s ability to
10
manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised. Id.
11
As for the risk of prejudice, while the mere pendency of an action does not constitute
12
prejudice, the impairment of Defendants’ ability to proceed to trial is prejudicial. Id. at 1227-28
13
(quotation marks omitted).
14
Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore
15
weighs against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the
16
case. Id. at 1228.
17
Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has
18
little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. In addition,
19
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner and ceased communication with the Court and defense counsel.
20
(ECF No. 33.)
21
Discovery is closed and the deadline for filing pretrial motions has passed, rendering
22
unavailable the Court’s ability to impose any limitations on Plaintiff in those areas as a sanction.
23
Lastly, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not an available sanction given that Plaintiff failed to
24
identify any exhibits or provide a witness list via a pretrial statement. See Local Rule 281(b)(10),(11).
25
In conclusion, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted given the procedural posture of this
26
case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pretrial scheduling order, and the unavailability of
27
satisfactory alternative sanctions. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29.
28
3
1
IV.
2
ORDER
3
For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
5
jury trial set for November 1, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED;
2.
6
7
The telephonic motions in limine hearing set for October 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. and
This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial
statement in compliance with the scheduling order; and
3.
8
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated:
12
September 21, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?